Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If you would please have a look again at my post (for your convenience: #189), you will notice that I have not only asked what a bad pilot is, but also, for one, why people are bad pilots who use ingame mechanics, and secondly, what kind of capacity you have to decide that for all players. The very same question I already asked you in post #177. Selectively answering questions is not going to help your cause. I could ignore that if you had added a "in my opinion", as you are entitled to and to voice your opinion; however, what you have written so far is not an opinion, but rather a verdict. So, what kind of capacity do you have to speak such a verdict?

And again: No, the scan immunity is not "entirely pointless", as demonstrated before. What you want is just easier ganks of people who don't follow your questionable ideals and verdicts. That is not a proper reason to remove this outstanding feature of a single ship class.

Like autopiloting a full BR ('s what you said). And you want the gankers to take care of those, because you want punish people who fly badly. But you don't want the gankers to shoot every BR on sight (i.e. you don't want them to shoot you), so you let them scan you so they know you're empty. So basically, you wish pain on BR pilots doing something you don't, so you personally get shot less.

Except that a) people don't AP BRs with high value in their cargo (risk ain't worth it) so these people you wish pain on don't exist. And b) you think you get to decide what good or bad is, even though autopiloting in general is widely regarded a bad idea (cargo or no, regardless of what you might think), and frankly, if the game allows for AP with valueable cargo, doing so is not bad gameplay. Except that, you know, it already doesn't allow it, since the point argued against removing was that it counters people who fly empty, not people who fly full.


Which, of course, is the real reason anyone argues against the immunity, it would making ganking more profitable (as they can filter out BRs which aren't profitable). Basically, there's ships that are flown well, and they are rarely ganked, and there's ships that are flown badly, and they want gankers to see which of those ships are profitable, so they don't have to take any risk (but still get the reward).

They do exist. They also park up on the jita gate and go afk.


You honestly think flying afk in a full blockade runner is a good pilot? It common sense, something far too many people seem to be lacking these days.



And why should the bad blockade runner pilots be protected from gankers scanning them? They are in a ship that when flown well is impossible to catch.

This is the key point. The immunity is not even needed because you cannot even be locked in the first place. Strange that people still insist on wanting immunity in light of this fact. Well, enjoy your fruitless discussion.

Who are bad pilots? Using AP is NOT being a bad pilot in my opinion. It is only You who wants to see them as bad pilots. So, what should I answer if there is nothing to answer? You, in contrast, cannot even answer why I should see you as capacity to judge people's behavior and play style.

Nice, then you have just answered your question on why people need a little bit of safety for their play style, which apparently does not align with your interesting ideas on how to play the game. This is a Sandbox, not Baltec1 Online. People have tools at their hand and use them however they like. Taking this sandbox-aspect away from them just because Baltec1 doesn't like safety built into a ship is "entirely pointless". You can use the ability of the ship to autopilot around your cargo in relative safety and pay with longer time, or you can use the abilities of your ship to haul it around faster. If you don't use the abilities of your ship to the fullest extent (ie. by autopiloting, you are not a bad pilot at all, you just use less efficient game mechanics, which in turn increase your risk of negative encounters). On the other hand, you can gank these ships, which are flown badly according to your verdict, just as well as any other ship. The only drawback with these ships is that you cannot be certain what you gank. Which is a good balance, considering that you only need 2 Catalyst to gank 1 Blockade Runner.

I reallly like the proposed idea of the deep space transports like the Impel having immunity to NPC Customs officer scans. I think that would really open up a cool way for people who enjoy making drugs to move their product around. I think its a great idea and the person who proposed it deserves a cookie haha.

As a pilot who regularly uses cloaky haulers for all manner of things I think the immunity to cargo scan bonus is really unique and id be sad to see it go. If it does go, I hope it ends up on another ship class because I honestly think EVE needs more unique bonuses like that. I think unique bonuses add to gameplay by adding another layer of thought when deciding how you want to use the ship :).

After awhile I get kind of tired seeing 5% more damage or 10% rate of fire. Makes things feel homogenized. So I really hope that CCP keeps trying to push these fun bonuses.

Just my thoughts
Best wishes
Saint

So it makes no difference for the most of us, but you argue against it vehemently. Why? Because you want to have it easy, that's why. There's one ship that you actually have to put in some effort to gank, and you can't stand that sometimes when you put in the effort, you get unlucky. Cry me a river.

I don't demand it. It is there already. And it is there for reasons to distinguish this ship from others in a a lot more cases and ways than your limited idea of its workings. It is also there because it fits the role of this ship.

If it is a waste of time from a gankers point of view, then I must say I am not really commiserating with them. The ganker pilots have it easy enough as it is. If they cannot determine if one ship type's cargohold is worth the Catalyst loss or not, it's not a great loss for them and certainly not for the hauler community. Gankers are to be required to make choices as well as the rest of the community. And this scanning immunity requires them to make a choice.

What you want is eliminating risk from your activities. That is a very low reason for the removal of this feature, especially your (not you personally, damn English) very vocal defenses of the risk in the Freighter topic.

I didn't. I said same effort, but some risk.

AP should not be safe.